First sex-based harassment conviction under new law

[IwantToRetire]

A train passenger who grabbed a young woman's hair and said "can I kiss you" has been convicted in the first sex-based harassment charge brought by the British Transport Police (BTP) since the law was changed.

David Stroud, of Dartford, made sexually motivated comments to the woman on a train to London on April 3, two days after a new law came into force banning harassment motivated by a person's sex.

The 44-year-old pleaded guilty to harassing the woman because of her sex at Highbury Corner Magistrates' Court on Thursday (May 7).

Prosecutor Paul Okebu told the court Stroud sat next to the woman, who was on the phone to her boyfriend at the time, on a train which left Hastings at about 8.50pm.

https://www.kentlive.news/news/kent-news/dartford-man-who-grabbed-womans-10954916

Way to go Transport Police. 🥳

I am sorry that the women had to go through this experience, I'd like to see the train companies put posters all over their trains, telling men if you sexually harass a women We Will Prosecute You, no if's, but's or maybe's.

Glad he was caught and punished.

I'm just wondering though, What's the difference between this new law and the law against sexual harassment? The fact he said 'can I kiss you?' clearly means it was sexually motivated rather than just because of her sex.

Does one carry a worse sentence? Or does one replace the other?

Good. Prosecute all of the creeps. I’d really like to see a generation of girls grow up and never experience this. To be able to leave the house being female and not be hassled.

Its explained in the article:

"It is a serious offence, targeting of a lone woman on public transport late in the evening." The magistrates ordered a pre-sentence report and Stroud will be sentenced at the same court on June 9.
The new offence, under Section 4B of the Public Order Act 1986, covers intentional harassment directed at someone because of their sex, including where perpetrators target women and girls in public places, including streets, parks and public transport, the Home Office previously said. BTP previously said the new section "strengthens existing public order powers by criminalising behaviour which causes intentional harassment, alarm or distress because of a person's sex or presumed sex".

When the change in the law was announced, safeguarding minister Jess Phillips said: "If you harass someone in public because of their sex, it will not be tolerated and you can face a criminal record and up to two years behind bars." Nathan Miebai, deputy chief Crown prosecutor for the West Midlands Crown Prosecution Service, said: "It is vital that women and girls feel safe in public spaces and able to live their lives without fear of harassment because of their sex.

"David Stroud made that impossible for one woman who was simply travelling home on the train and today he has faced the consequences of his actions. This first-of-its-kind conviction proves that through close collaboration across the criminal justice system, we can deliver outcomes like these for more victims and build a safer environment for everyone to be a part of."

"....build a safer environment for everyone to be a part of."

I like that turn of phrase, we need to build a consensus on what is and what is not acceptable behaviours, not just attempt to impose a ridged and yet vaguely defined standard. But we need to build it a damn site faster than we are. I appreciate that fact that the Transport Police pressed charges, and the CPS took it to court, that's a good way to start to build a "safer environment",

There is no criminal law against sexual harassment. There is a criminal law against harassment in general, but that requires a course of conduct (so more than once). And there are, of course, criminal laws against sexual assault. There are also protections against sexual harassment in the workplace that require your employer to protect you but do not criminalize the offender. The lack of sanctions for men who sexually harass women on the street has been an ongoing issue, until this new law.

It's nice to be celebrating good news, for a change!!

Maybe now the message will start get through that one man’s ‘banter’ is another woman’s harassment.

If he grabbed her hair then surely that's an assault. I hope that was included in his charges.

F14BIntentional harassment, alarm or distress on account of sex
(1)A person (A) is guilty of an offence under this section if—
(a)A commits an offence under section 4A (intentional harassment, alarm or distress), and
(b)A carried out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1) because of the relevant person’s sex (or presumed sex)

Does this impact men entering the women’s toilets now that single sex toilets are confirmed by the Supreme Court to be single sex?

Unfortunately, under that offence, only if he enters intending to cause harassment, alarm or distress. And that would be difficult to prove in the majority of cases. If he enters intending (as they all claim is all they want) to pee, or even intending to get validated in their womanhood, or to make a political statement about the Supreme Court ruling, I can't see how that wouldn't satisfy the Mens Rea required. Of course, there will be the odd instance where someone says something that does prove that is their intent, but I think that's what it would take.

Thank you. I get it now. It can be just one incident rather than needing to be several.

Apologies I should have made myself clearer. For clarity, I will use the exact example that was in the Stonewall booklet (the booklet that was quoted by most people who responded to the Document T - toilets consultation):
I was physically assaulted by two women as I attempted to use the bathroom in a bar. They began pushing me and shouted that I was in the wrong bathroom and pointed out that this was the ladies’ bathroom. I told them that I knew which bathroom it was and I was in the right place, but they persisted. Since then I avoid public toilets whenever possible.

I am not trying to be goady. I genuinely want to know how this would work under this new clause. Could the man or women claim it?

From the women’s point of view I imagine what happened is they would say they told him to leave. He wouldn’t. They started shouting, he wouldn’t go. So they tried to push him out. (This is very unusual, women don’t normally say anything and hide their discomfort or avoid going into toilets if they know there is a man is there).

I can see no one was backing down. This example above was the main detailed example in the booklet that led to that trans people’s safety being the highest concern out of all demographics for the Doc T analysis.

I suppose what I am asking is because of FWS has it changed the situation who can claim harassment, alarm or distress of the account of sex?

I don't think being physically assaulted is the same as sexually assaulted, it would be hard for a charge of sexual assault to stick for the incident above, surely.
But most legislation is a double edged sword, I'm sure there's a possibility that it could be used against women defending their single sex spaces, it depends on whether the CPS presses charges with this new law.

Again with that specific offence, the intention of the women pushing the trans identified man out of their toilet is to get a man out of their toilet so they can feel safe, not to cause the man harassment, alarm or distress. So it should not stick in court.

I think the FWS ruling would help in making the case that their intention was just to remove him as it makes their expectation of the man not being there legitimate in the eyes of the law. So their intention would be more likely to be accepted, rather than it being seen as them wanting to harass a man who was somewhere he should be able to be IYSWIM.

But I'm not really sure how the using physical force (assault) to remove him would play out - I don't think, as customers, they have the right to physically remove someone the way an owner or their agents would. And I don't think FWS has much impact on that, though it might help it be argued it was a form of self defence.